> The entire point of these tests is specifically to break things
When you do these types of tests you are testing for a expected outcome.
If you do a test and the outcome is un-expected (i.e. the fuselage fails prematurely) it means your engineering and the expectations built around that engineering are wrong.
No, as the Seattle Times pointed out the intent of the test is to ensure the wings support 150% of their rated load. They may continue until things break, but the typical purpose is simply to ensure there's that 50% wiggle room.
When you do these types of tests you are testing for a expected outcome.
If you do a test and the outcome is un-expected (i.e. the fuselage fails prematurely) it means your engineering and the expectations built around that engineering are wrong.